Youth Registration. Girl Scout Shop. Girl Scouts Overseas Shop. Check out our Stuttgart Girl Scout patches. Transfer registration. Neighborhood Patch Program. Complete Neighborhood Patch Packet. Newsletter submission. Find us on social media! Register HERE! Need some new SWAG? Stuttgart Girl Scouts. All of the members of which no doubt take the words of the Bible as literally true.
Or is this merely another exercise in avoiding the real issues and diverting attention to a topic the writer prefers to discuss? Even the briefest review of statistics on violence against females in Australia can show that there are several groups with extraordinarily high rates of abuse. Those identifying as Aboriginal are one group, those of the religion which must never be mentioned in a negative sense another.
Strangely, no study I can find identifies practicing Sydney Anglicans as a "hot spot" of domestic violence. No wonder we have a rising number of youths in this country who see nothing worthy of admiration in our culture or history, and who prefer to go and fight for a barbarous group who want to return an imaginary medieval paradise. Until we stop this self-flagellation and start to promote and celebrate the achievements of Western culture, including the encouragement by the mainly Christian society of an admittedly slow acceptance of the equality of men and women, we will see increasing rejection of our way of life.
And Dr Tyler may be surprised to discover there are some sections of Sydney's population that do not hold women in anywhere near the same level of respect as do the Anglicans. Wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments. Why am I not particularly surprised that the ABC would choose to publish an article like this targeting Christians whilst ignoring the elephant in the room i. I can only guess. Any balanced study of biblical doctrine will very quickly identify that yes, the husband is to be the head of the household. Any organisation or team needs a head or a captain. The New Testament nowhere says that women are to be subservient or treated an anything other than equal in a marriage.
Paul exhorts If Christian husbands are treating their wives badly they are using their own out of context interpretation of the New Testament, not what it actually teaches. Opinion Piece b The article isn't 'targeting ' Christians, it is written by an Anglican, about matters that concern the Anglican church.
If you don't know enough about religion or editorial policies to be able to comment sensibly then try reading more carefully. The bible, including the New Testament is extremely misogynistic, as it was written at a time and in a culture in which women were property. Here's just a couple of examples from a single chapter of a single book of the bible 1 Corinthians If you consider the status of women at the time it was written Who could marry as she pleased requiring no ceremony, but only a mutual will and agreement to live together in harmony?
In certain types of marriage, she could also avoid her husband establishing any legal control over her affairs. Of course the increasing Christianisation of the Empire eventually had negative consequences for the legal status of women. Are you familiar with the notion of pater familias and pater potestas? A father had the right to kill his wife and family it had a bad day, even after his daughters had married. Domestic abusewas at a different level then.
And remember the Romans were the forward thinking on this. Marriage was not a sacrament initially but the Church did introduce the radical idea that women should be asked and give permission before they could be married. Of course almost all men thought that was leftist poppycock for a few thousand years but at least the church tried.
Are you aware that most of the 'traditional' elements of those concepts were laid down years before 'the Bible' and the Romans had already reformed them into a more benign form by the fifth century BCE, in the Twelve Tables? However I do not assert that Roman society was enlightened and pro-woman, just that it was vastly more supportive of women's rights on a range of topics than the Bible is.
This was intended to challenge Snickersnee's assertion that "the bible was rather forward thinking in its approach towards women", which is wrong, even by the standards of the day. Perhaps Origen AD can explain it better: "Even if it is granted to a woman to show the sign of prophecy, she is nevertheless not permitted to speak in an assembly".
How about Tertullian AD : "It is not permitted to a woman to speak in church. Neither may she teach, baptize, offer, nor claim for herself any function proper to a man, least of all the sacerdotal office. My point is that the idea of the perpetual tutorlage of women was built into the Twelve Tables and the Corpus Juris. It never really left the legal field properly until the third quarter of the twentieth century. Given that english Common Law was a mixture that derived from custom and germanic tribal law, Roman Law didn't play a big role in Australian thinking.
Scots law as it happens is largely Roman Law even today. The canon and civil law were kept seperate. Roman civil law determined the status of women. Until very recently it was only a scratch ahead of the Twelve Tables, which is to say abysmal. For its time Islam was more liberal but hardly gender equal. The Bible never really had much say over the status of women in Europe.
If women had a hard time in Europe Roman Law was the basis of it in most countries. The Church and marriage is a very minor exception in that they introduced an insistence on consent - which as I said before was considered leftist poppycock by the conservatives of the day. Your argument is unclear. So why did English and Australian law discriminate against women? Where did that come from? Which kind of begs the question, 'What's the point of the Bible then? The fact is the position of women did not improve, nor did she own property in her own right as we understand it today.
The Institutes are quite clear. If a woman is married with manus she passed into the potestas of her husband's pater familias as did her property. He dowry was administered by her husband in either case but with manus meant her property other property passed to him as well. Upon divorce of widowing she became sui juris but she still needed a tutor A marriage without manus meant she stayed under the potestas of her own pater familias as did her property. When her pater familias died she became sui juris but still needed a tutor appointed by her father, as I recall.
This kept it out of the hands of her husband. The Bible was most influential in canon law but even there Roman Law was the main source of substantive and adjectival law. Divorce is an example where canon laws biblical influences held precedence. There were other areas where the ecclesiastical courts predominated mostly in the area of personal status. They also developed the inquisitorial system which still holds sway in most of Europe and South America.
This is getting a bit technical to be of wide interest so I shall leave it there. Anne everything you is say is very true about the development of law. But, this does not explain the use of submission to describe a very narrow view of marriage. Sydney Anglicans, who are NOT representative of the Anglican Church as a whole in Australia or in many other parts of the world, have taken a particularly sixteenth century view of the use of language.
As the reformation began by looking at the languages the Bible was written in, i. Often they also privilege sixteenth century interpretations over more modern ones that result in from years of scholarship. The view of submission in marriage is based on an idea found in one source of the Book of Common Prayer, I can't remember which one, which Sydney Anglicans have chosen to interpret in their own way. Remember, this is the branch of the Anglican Church in Australia that refuses to ordain women priests- they have to justify this backward stance somehow.
Diana Perhaps I have created the wrong impression. The Anglican Communion is characterized by its being a broad church. Usually it is forward looking and embraces a degree of ideological contradiction. Usually it finds a home for all of those who would be supplicants and emphasizes the teachings of Jesus to welcome and encompass all of Gods creation.
Very occasionally there spring up splinters that, to my mind at least, have little in common with the spirit of Jesus' message. They being apparently obsessed with personal prejudices and activisms that are too entrenched for them to think beyond. Such refusal to take on the challenge of gods ongoing revelations to us is not, to my mind, compatible with being Christian.
Books | Fiction | Buy online in South Africa from zopusalawyky.ga
Is one to take it that given the Church in now in its third millennium we are still to stick to those "forward doctirnes"?? As Demac points out in his comment below, your view about the biblical status of women compared to contemporary societies is simply false. As bad as the New Testament is, the Old Testament law which actually dictated women's status in Jewish society 2, years ago was much worse.
In fact, the Old Testament is actually worse than the Koran in terms of it's injustice towards women. Just one quick example, in Deuteronomy 22, a girl who is raped is commanded to marry her rapist. This was the Law of Moses which was still observed in iron age Palestine. But don't let an important concept like the facts get in the way of a misinformed rant. Also, you might want to read up on what an ad hominem fallacy actually is, because I don't think it means what you think it means.
However, surely Jesus, the son of the Creator of the Universe, would have been able to separate inalienable human rights from their temporal and geographical context, wouldn't he? Wasn't his perspective a bit more comprehensive than desert-suburb-of-PalestineAD? Wouldn't Jesus have had the same kind of perspective that you have today when you read about women rape victims being stoned to death for adultery while the perpetrator gets a slap on the wrist?
Your point only makes sense if Jesus was just an ordinary man, the Bible was written by ordinary men based on their own thoughts, and god is just a character in their novel. When an idea fits the evidence and explains it so completely I think it's incumbent on us all as humans to accept that it's correct, no matter what we thought before.
The reason the Bible is so retro is that it was written by men with men's knowledge and men's outlook for men's needs. How do you define those as misogynistic? Is this some kind of subconscious Gillard tribute? I can only presume that you hate God, Christ, and man, which might make you feel confused and jump to the wrong conclusions.
How did Julia Gillard get involved in this discussion? Do you realise that "misogyny" is an actual word in the English language? I suspect that you only learned that word when Julia Gillard accused Tony Abbott of misogyny. Your presumption that I hate Zeus, Jesus and Homo sapiens is not really worthy an additional comment. You don't see the comparisons then, and the only way you can drag hatred into it is if you think of God, Jesus, and man, as inglorious.
I think I recall you mentioning somewhere else in this section that you have had a bad run with religion. It's understandable, but you don't have to take your personal problems out on the rest of us. Ben Nallay - Hatred? I'd be fascinated how you've concluded that. My rejection of religion has zero to do with the behaviour of any person or any organisation. It has everything to do with the absence of any evidence that any gods exist. In fact, the Macquarie helpfully altered to definition of "misogyny" for her. Previously it meant hatred of all women.
When she accused Mr Abbott of that it was of course easy for anyone to prove it was a baseless slur. So the sisterhood hopped in to provide a watered down definition. High class mistresses of influential Corinthians didn't wear their kalumma. If you are going to argue that the New Testament is not a misogynistic document, either you don't know your Bible or you are not being honest. Finally, someone has twigged. The Torah basically the old testament , The Bible, and the Koran were written at a time when the most informed were able to assume control of the illiterate masses with such writings.
That a mortal man would get away with calling himself a messiah, or a prophet, these days, would have them locked up as being of unsound mind. Religions may have brought peace and tranquillity to many over the millennium, but they are also responsible for much of the hardship and horror meted out to those who don't share the same belief as their followers. Why anyone of today would wish to revert back to the middle ages and beyond, beggars belief; or is that the problem.
Wayne, your persecution complex is showing. Not sure why you liken a marriage to a "team" or "organization" which, you state, needs a leader. Surely a marriage between two equal humans is more akin to a partnership than a football club? Wayne and Tabanus Thank you for saying what i wanted to say. In a cultural context where they would never criticise Jews, Muslims or Shiks.
The fundamental rule of Christianity is "love one another as I have loved you" That is lens through which all christian teaching must be seen. To suggst that Anglichan teaching causes encourages or leads to domesitc violence in the absence of any statistical evidence to back your position is fundamentaly irrisponsible and simply sectarianism. ABC - i expect better. I find your response peculiar, since Tyler and Baird, in my view, spoke to the problem from christian perspectives. I think you are just displaying the common, and most usually unjustified, christian persecution complex.
Maybe you are just sensitive about your belief, because heavens knows! How very post-modern. Criticise the author of a post you don't like by ignoring his message and claiming that author is shooting the messenger. Unfortunately any reading of my post makes it clear I am aiming at the content of the original article.
Greybag's post, however, makes no mention of content. I rest my case. Of course, if this is a very clever attack on those of the left who claim to be cleverer than the rest of us, then I apologise. PS I don't follow the logic at all. Are you claiming that those who shoot messengers are always right wingers? Or that right wingers tend to shoot messengers? Could you provide examples and possibly some arguments to support this theory? Is it as valid as "You bash your wife therefore you are an Anglican"? No effort was made in the post to address the problem. There was the old right wing tactic of 'look over there, something worse and they have brown skin' and then accusing the person writing the article of ignoring the distraction.
Pathetic attempt at redirection instead of actually facing reality. I stand by my comment that this tactic is so prevalent in right wing discourse as to easily pick the political leanings of the person posting the comment. Shoot the messenger is the only response we get from the cultural warriors on the right who believe in their own innate superiority. The wish to claim 'headship' of all society and will brook no complaints. The comment was a further symptom of the cause of the problems for wives and that of society in general. The overwhelming righteousness of the traditional 'leaders' and the born to rule mentality of the right wingers even when they are given clear and concise proof that they are indeed part of the problem while refusing to be part of the solution.
The old argument that we should celebrate out relative lack of bigotry to someone else.
- Lavorare in Comune. Storia di un Comune, storie di persone (Italian Edition).
- Teach Yourself How to Play the Ukulele.
- YOKE - All The Bible Teaches About.
- Upload successful.
- Paranormal Investigations : The Cajun Ghost Hunter Chronicles!
- Cuando Los Hombres Oran (Spanish Edition).
- The Erotic Faculty!
How about just saying no to bigotry? How about saying domestic violence is bad anywhere, and bigotry is what drives it? Or would that threaten your comfortable position in society? I do have a comfortable position in society, due to luck and a measure of hard work. Does that disqualify me from commenting?
I would be happy to say that domestic violence is bad anywhere, and have done so on many occasions. In this instance, however, I am pointing out that it is not helpful to ignore areas of real concern and to highlight areas that are probably below the national average of abuse.
Do you think that it is helpful to point to an infected cut on the arm on a person with a gangrenous leg? Both are bad, but one requires more urgent attention. PS Bigotry is not the same as violence. There are an awful lot of bigots around.
Most keep their views to themselves, some speech openly and some resort to actions. One only has to look at the range of anti-Jewish activities in Australia to see confirmation of this. All we can hope to do is restrain those who seek to act out their hatred, reply to those who speak and set a good example to the rest. Wayne, this is an argument within Christianity, not against it.
Dr Tyler isn't talking about Anglicans in Sydney, she's talking about a branch of Anglicanism known for historic reasons as Sydney Anglicanism. Sydney Anglicans have more fundamentalist views about male headship than the broader Anglican church. As a Christian my selection of a husband is about finding that man who I can place above everyone else children, friends, family etc , everything else job, address etc except God AND who will do the same for me.
The complexity lies in the fact that we are not the same person and will have different views.
That is where the "submission" comes in- it is agreed that after all has been considered, he will have the final say. That is where the trust comes in and the ability to communicate as equals. The notion of submission is not about abuse and to try to twist it that it is shows firstly a lack of understanding of the Christian faith and secondly a lack of understanding of the status of wives and husbands in marriage Hell, hand me the burqa and the circumcision snippers!!!!!
And Paul maybe puts it best when he describes the role that God requires for the husband. This role is one that involves "loving your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her. One of my fundamentalist sisters believes Paul had 'issues' when it came to sex and women Demac.
She is a strong believer in the Bible but that is her considered view. FWIW she comes over as knowledgeable on the history of the Bible to me. My much poorer understanding is that being a celibate hermit was considered the ideal by many of that time, not just the Christians. The Christian doctrine had no coalesced to the degree we see today. It was more a conversation in progress I believe.
I'm glad that being an atheist saves me from mind bending attempts at reconciliation of the various threads and stories. As a man who just escaped an emotionally abusive marriage - yes being a celibate hermit is now my ideal. Have a nice day - and remember it's only religion. But Demac the issue is about how a man response to his wife and how the ideology of the left wish to ignore the whole teaching to suit their anti-religion ideology.
If that is the driving behind your comment then you are as anti-western society as the rest of those ideologues. Hope you like the ISIS alternative which you are hell bent in opening the door too.. I think you should actually read something about the Inquisition. The best estimates for the number of people executed during the whole period of the various inquisitions, several hundred years, range between 2, and 5, These were all nominally Catholics, as the Inquisition was only interested in heresy.
A few crackpots insist that the Catholic killed millions and hid all the evidence, including where these millions came from. I would hazard a guess that ISIS has executed that many in the past year or so, and without any restriction on the religion of those killed. And of course the Enlightenment was not an accomplishment of religion: it was the response of most of Christianity to the Enlightenment that was the basis of our culture.
On the grounds that it isn't as vile as ISIS? Still, it was a fair effort given the smaller population and limited technology back then. Apart from the few hundred 'sodomites' they burnt.
And the few hundred 'protestants' they burnt. Still, to be fair they never took accusations of witchcraft very seriously and only killed a dozen or so innocent women and children after torturing a couple of thousand. And the Thirty Years' War, was that part of "the response of most of Christianity to the Enlightenment"? My understanding is that the murderers in charge of the Inquisition were desperate to find proof of the exidence of the devil, particularly in the case of 'witches'. These days, few 'enlightened' Christians probably belive in the devil, or in eternal punishment in the fires of hell.
I doubt how many even believe in bodily resurrection in a heaven complete with angels playing harps. Quite a few non-Christians don't have a lot of time for the apostle Paul, who never actually heard Christ preaching, and made up a lot of his own rules. The issue for most Christians is in following the sayings of Christ, and in particular 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'.
How can I be defending the Inquisition? I provided some facts or as close as we are likely to get that made it clear they killed people for heresy. As an agnostic and opponent of the death penalty, that is enough to make their actions abhorrent to me. Unfortunately there is so little knowledge of history that I felt forced to point out a few basic matters. I will not go into the origins of the Thirty Years War as it would take too long, but while on the face of it a Catholic-Protestant dispute that got out of hand, it was far more a struggle for dominance of Europe by France and the Hapsburgs.
Nothing really to do with the Enlightenment. If you add all the other 'modern' Inquisitions in we'll exclude the more Medieval inquisitions, with all that regrettable 'collateral damage' during the Albigensian Crusade, perhaps the figure would get closer to 10, for judical executions.
And yes, the Roman Inquisition was more focused on heretics and witches and dangerous ideas than the Spanish and Protestant ones. Why can't it be agreed that you have the final say?. Or as in my and many other relationships, decisions are made by mutual agreement, and if necessary sometimes he will compromise, sometimes I will. It's really not that hard if you've got the right partner. Of course submission doesn't automtaically equate to abuse, if you choose to submit, well that's your choice, your life.
If you choose to be a secondary partner in your relationship, go for it, but if that's is what Christianity requires, I'm glad again I ditched it. There is this really old saying that the man is the head of the house but the woman is the kneck who can turn the head any way she wants too. Of course this is total bs that says women have to be passive aggressive manipulator. The other weird thing is unlike Islam is not sealed the bible might be the word of god but no one said god had stopped speaking yet just a group of bishops in around ad or ce agreed on these texts to stop various sects from breaking away.
The thing is what we want is a sort of weird non sexist Confucianism where dominance or Leadership is fluid and situational where the person who is best equipped takes the lead, this doesn't mean that the other has to follow unless they agree too. I will definitely raise any daughters I might have not to submit to their husband's decisions in all things.
Then again, my relationship with my wife will give them a demonstration of the virtues of ACTUAL equality in the relationship. What is they wish to marry a member of a religion that insists they convert or, as they say, revert to their original belief and that holds that women are by their nature worth less than men? Then they should tell their prospective husband to leave the crazy sect or the marriage is off. Any religion that is so intolerant that it can't accept having its members married to non-members is a joke. To suggest that it's reasonable is literally funny.
That kind of behaviour is straight out of the middle ages, and belongs in the past along with forced "conversions" read: torture and murder of non-christians, theft of supposedly baptized non-christian children, and similar atrocities. I would imagine that would be a very difficult decision for a parent to accept, but if she is a grown woman she is free to make her own mistakes.
I think you need to check on Catholic doctrine. I have never heard of a ban on "mixed" marriages in living memory, though there is an requirement that children be brought up Catholics. Tabanis - children required to be brought up Catholic, yes that's correct and the other one: "and that holds that women are by their nature worth less than men" Female priests hmmm?
You missed my point- It is not that my husband has the final say in all things, just those where there is no agreement. Love is about trust and respect. Just as Christ has unconditional love for us, we seek the same in marriage. Why seek conflict? There are times when backing down is the preferred option. In a Christian marriage that would be rarely. A wise woman knows when to pick her battles. Marriage, from e perspective of a wife or husband is not about supremacy.
But conflict has to be ended, and that is when the husband has the final say and after all including the wife's view is considered. You will be pleased to learn that your Christianity apparently comes with a level of protection via moderation which is not currently available to secularists.
Can a Black Feminist be Sexually Submissive to a White Man?
Lucky you. Either God is not alone in moving in mysterious ways, or else the conundrum needs to be flipped-over and viewed instead along the lines of the ABC making a statement about God's hitherto absolute monopoly on mysteriousness. I can't wait to hear Chris Kenny regale us amid much foam and froth about how the corporation is moving into areas traditionally the province of private enterprise deities.
While "The notion of submission is not about abuse And that lends itself to abuse. Especially when children's safety or welfare is threatened under such a patriarchal hierarchy. Hi sue, whilst it is nice to have a partnership where we value each other it is important not to put a partner above one's children.
Children come first, then the partner. Your kids are only kids for a short time, during that time they should be your first priority. If you can't get your head around that then don't have them. This is one of the consequences of the devoutly religious putting the interests of the religion above everything else, including their responsibility to their own children.
One of the truly ugly things that this abrogation of responsiblity has led to is religious parents not reporting the abuse of their own children by religious figures - and no, I'm not just talking about christians. I've never heard of a church beyond the compound-living-cults taking someone's kids away because they left the religion. SUE: If he has the final say then you are not equal. You cannot be equal to anyone who gets the final say. My wife said she didn't hear the word obey in our marriage vows, just as well half the time what I want doesn't make a lot of sense. Of course half the time she spouts off on a topic she is wrong as well.
Anyone that buys the religious nonsense put out by any of the churches really should have their heads examined. It's an absolutely terrible thing to suggest that a wife should respect her husband and that a husband should hold his wife in higher regard than anything or anyone else in the world. Even worse to suggest that people generally treat each other with respect in the way that they wish to be treated themselves.
The most atrocious thing coming out of the Bible on relationships is the suggestion that upon taking the sacrament of marriage, the husband and wife become one with each other. Such a terrible social construct it is! If I don't want someone to steal from me, then it is only reasonable that I don't steal from them, for example. The point is you can live by that principle without the need to believe in any of the myriad versions of 'god' that have littered human history. The kids thing could be Darwinism in action the wife thing is sweet but then we get to the idea of how do you treat other peoples kids?
I don't mean to get all game of thrones but some people have no problem with a guy tossing a nine year old out a window because he did for love and to protect his children. At it's best both Christianity and a lot of other philosophies regard all kids as our kids that we have a duty to protect nurture all children It's why the report was on children in detention a lot of us really do feel that way. So the question is game theory would have you treat your wife and kids well selfishness would demand it and you make sure that other children have as little resources as possible.
Of course Huitizilopochtli the Aztec sun god demanded that you went out and offered him the still beating hearts of sacrificial victims But that's not really the sky god your referring to I hope. Having a wife who doesn't submit to me is most definitely a blessing. A man would have to be very lacking in self confidence to want a wife who always defers to his frequently wrong-headed decisions! The point of the article is mutual respect.
If a religion says a man always has the final say it is a dangerous tenet. Marriage should be a partnership with neither woman nor man at the 'head of the table' The table is round. Hi Yank I use this nom de plume closet romantic for the reason for me love relationships and I mean all types of love platonic sexual familial fraternal etc are the most important thing in the world but I am in the main taught by the world to be a dissapointed romantic so I sail very close to the edge of cynicism the ultimate ideal is that we treat each other with love and respect seeing the best in each other etc the reality is that most of us are small minded, self important, ignorant and ego centric.
I don't claim to be different from this just aware that the truth is different for everyone and we all have feet of clay but sometimes the ideals are so bright so wonderful you can't help but hope that one day we will succeed in building Jerusalem a utopia of love and respect So the way you use sacrament as a problem confuses me I don't for a minute believe that love sexual or otherwise needs to be validated by an outside authority but I do believe that it can be sacred and that sexual love can be a sacrament a sort of with this body I thee worship or to quote the musical Les Miserable to love another person is too see the face of god.
The current hit song Take Me To Church has a lot of these messages of love being sacred song lines about worship in the bedroom and heaven being alone with loved one. If we take away the specialness of love whether you want to use the term Sacred, sacrament or just romance we become functions in each other's lives not the active power that has the gestalt effect of making us better people when we care about someone else. So have I misunderstood you do you see your love relationships as a combination of the purely biological and social?
I'm not trying to be rude but understand your meaning as too me sacrement means a sacred act and the act of love can be holy whether you believe in a god or not as it makes us more whole in this world. To the extent that religion has anything good to offer, it has usually purloined it from the secular world.
To the extent that religion has anything original to add to morality, it is too frequently evil. Isn't this the very issue that ordinary Muslims are facing with Islamists: that while not condoning their extremes nor do they condemn them? Moderate Christians as with moderate Muslims and Moderate Jews provide sanctuary and tacit support for extremism by not condemning it because they have no rational grounds on which to condemn it.
Extremists are as correct as moderates in their interpretations of scripture - there is support in the holy books for genocide as well as philanthropy, for rape and murder as well as charity. There are no theological objections to religious extremism - only secular ideals can combat the ideology of religious violence and bigotry. Men are no more the 'head' than women and should not assume authority because of their gender. The mere idea is anathema to rational and civilised thought and should have no place in 21C Australia.
When are we finally going to expose these stupid, superstitious, bigoted and corrosive ideas from our public discourse? Religion is an intellectual and cultural dead-end. Its militant stupidity needs to be debunked at the grass roots: in our schools and in our public institutions. I'm shocked that taxpayers in are supporting the promotion of such ideas through church tax-exemption and state-funded faith schools. Surely this has to stop?
It's the same for football enthusiasts. It's the same for people.
- [zopusalawyky.ga] Submissives Hard Discovery Submission Abroad ebook Free zopusalawyky.ga - Google Диск!
- Richard Starks Parker Vol. 1: The Hunter!
- DEEP STATE;
- Can a Black Feminist be Sexually Submissive to a White Man?!
- Willingness and Nothingness (The Dark Servant Book 14).
- The Second-Story Man;
- Johannes Kepler : The Laws of Planetary Motion (A Short Biography for Children)!
- How To Protect Your Children From Internet Predators.
- Al-Qaeda The Spider: Mass Terrorism Is Not Dead. Are We Safe?;
Even the same for Mitor. Ben: I have heard that argument expressed before, that somehow a secularist is as committed to a belief, equivalent to a religion. In actual fact all a secularist is, is someone that has not been brain washed as a child that there is a "God" somewhere to whom we are all subservient. There are no strange customs, no bowing down,no supporting a church industry, in fact nothing other than reality.
Oh there you are. What you mean is that you have misunderstood that argument before. You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that only theists are human, but you and your kind are supernatural! Beyond corruption! Perfect is what you think you are. Well good on you, and you keep on telling 'em so you can show how unbigoted you and your perfect superhuman unbrainwashed athiests fellows truly are. No one ever fooled you, did they? I love these sorts of articles - LOL all afternoon. So, no argument then - no justification for silly ideas, just a snarky ad-hom attack on Tom.
If the only argument in support of religion is that other people's ideas are just as bad, well, frankly it surprises me that congregations are shrinking. I mean, with such a persuasive narrative I cannot imagine how the wonders of Anglicanism have passed me by. I will tell my wife immediately that she has to submit to me because some stone age people reckon they saw a revelation from the creator of the universe and that's apparently what he wants. And we should trust that this really happened, of course, because it's in a book and what more evidence is required?
Stone age people knew the difference between liars and truth tellers, fantasists and realists, people with psychoses and people with experience. Objective evidence is for apostates. Where do I kneel? At Jack's request, they decide to attend a meeting for young entrepreneurs. But things take a turn for But things take a turn. Book rate:. Related queries:. Montgomery, Rory Auden, R.
Please wait Genres new Bookmarks General News. Search in.